NFL doesnt pay musicians, or its taxes.

[WillRock]

To add to this, exposure on the level of the Super Bowl is clearly worth it - beside the exposure, all expenses are paid for, and often companies sponsor the performers anyway. If it has a negative impact, it's only on those too naive to understand what's going on, because the performers are getting an excellent deal out of it. If smaller-time venues/companies try to swindle artists by mentioning "exposure" and citing the Super Bowl as an example, it's up to the artists to realize that exposure doesn't work the same way on a much smaller scale. There's nothing inherently wrong with getting exposure instead of a fee though.

The only reason the Super Bowl don't pay is because we let them do it. If every famous artist in the world demanded payment, would the Super Bowl pay up or get some unknown band? I wonder.

What about everyone else? The NFL players for example? "Oh its ok, you get expenses paid for and you'll be sponsored anyway. Everyone will be buying your merchandise after this, so we're not going to bother paying you"

So you're saying its ok for everyone else but not ok for musicians? I don't doubt that Bruno probably got his share of exposure and indirect payment, but instincts are telling me he's got gaining as much as he should be from it.

To quote a great man -

[Palpable]

The only reason the Super Bowl don't pay is because we let them do it. If every famous artist in the world demanded payment, would the Super Bowl pay up or get some unknown band? I wonder.

What about everyone else? The NFL players for example? "Oh its ok, you get expenses paid for and you'll be sponsored anyway. Everyone will be buying your merchandise after this, so we're not going to bother paying you"

So you're saying its ok for everyone else but not ok for musicians? I don't doubt that Bruno probably got his share of exposure and indirect payment, but instincts are telling me he's got gaining as much as he should be from it.

To quote a great man -

I think if the Super Bowl could get away with it without looking bad, they'd probably take a cut of what the performers get from the exposure. And the performers would still take the deal! I mean, a company pays millions for a one-minute commercial. Bruno Mars got 12 minutes of free advertising. If a two-year old album of Bruno Mars' is climbing back up the charts now, I'm sure he's quite happy with this. I think you're getting too caught up in the principle in this specific case - exposure on that scale is worth a hell of a lot, and I wouldn't be surprised if any standard fee the Super Bowl could pay would be nominal in comparison. How about if instead of hiring a musician, they just ran a Bruno Mars ad? Would that make more sense principle-wise?

The Super Bowl is one isolated venue, when the problem you mention is a lot more widespread, and way more prevalent on the smaller scales, like with indie game companies and bars. Musicians are underpaid, but the Super Bowl is the wrong target to go after, because the promise of exposure there really is worth it. Morals about devaluing of work be damned; if they offered to let me play at the Super Bowl, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I'd probably pay for the privilege.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Palpable

[Cash]

I don't doubt that Bruno probably got his share of exposure and indirect payment, but instincts are telling me he's got gaining as much as he should be from it.

Who's to say how much money he should be making?

To quote a great man -

OCR is a community of talented people making music for FREE. Are you really suggesting OCR shouldn't exist because we don't get paid? I hope I just misinterpreted a joke...

Edited February 4, 2014 by Cash

[Meteo Xavier]

You can demand payment for art 'til the cows come home, but that won't help to influence potential buyers who can find someone cheaper and potentially better to do the job. He who has the gold makes the rules.

We might need to just face facts - the days where you can follow your dreams of doing whatever art you want, get paid a king's ransom for it and have the whole world love you for it might be over. Everybody's wanted that dream for the last 100 years, and the way things are now are because everyone's been trying to get that perfect combination of HAVING IT ALL. We might have to grow up, set our artistic goals more realistically, being thankful for what we get, and get real jobs instead of moaning on how everyone and everything is raining down on us poor artists.

I don't mean to sound like a cross between Red Foreman and a Communist, but c'mon, we're old enough to know how the real world works. 100,000,000 artists all vying for the same ultimate prizes means very, very few were going to get anything out of it. We knew the risks the moment the minute we listened to music on the internet and decided to try that for ourselves.

Or should have, at least.

I'm really not trying to be a buzzkill here, I really just think this is nature's way of reminding us the true beauty of art is art itself, not how much you get paid for it.

[Melodious Punk]

I don't mean to sound like a cross between Red Foreman and a Communist, but c'mon, we're old enough to know how the real world works. 100,000,000 artists all vying for the same ultimate prizes means very, very few were going to get anything out of it. We knew the risks the moment the minute we listened to music on the internet and decided to try that for ourselves.

It can be very hard to keep a positive attitude when striving for the ultimate. Contentment is possible, and whether you're playing for 5 people or several thousand, if you love music, it will always be the ultimate reward at least for that moment. Food and Shelter are considerations that we all have to make but you don't have to be the best to be happy.

What about MAGFest, PAX, and all the other conventions? Is it fair that they don't pay most of their artists? They operate on the same principle as music festivals, which are very hard to break through unless you're unbelievable. If you're ubelievable you can blow away any crowd.

[Cash]

We might need to just face facts - the days where you can follow your dreams of doing whatever art you want, get paid a king's ransom for it and have the whole world love you for it might be over.

When did those days exist? It has always been difficult to make it big in the music industry.

I'm really not trying to be a buzzkill here, I really just think this is nature's way of reminding us the true beauty of art is art itself, not how much you get paid for it.

I completely agree with this.

[Meteo Xavier]

When did those days exist? It has always been difficult to make it big in the music industry.

There were eras when companies really did virtually mill out music contracts to any rebellious dickhead with a guitar. It was still hard, but it wasn't nearly as hard as it is today now that music appreciation is as widely varied as it is and yet still somehow completely homogenialized into everything short of Ragtime.

Not to even mention how the advent of the DAW was the music industry equivalent of God flooding the world without giving Noah so much as a head's up.

[Patrick Burns]

There's access to more music today than anyone knows what to do with.

And while I know being an artist has a lot do with love of fellowship, beauty, emotional honesty, etc . . . the truth is that anyone who expects the world to support them as a musician today is being childish. The world's got bigger problems than supporting us while we make the air vibrate with our feelings, and it's up to us to get our business in order and show people the value we offer as a supplier of an overabundant resource.

[Garrett Williamson]

When did those days exist? It has always been difficult to make it big in the music industry.

There's always been an advantage and disadvantage. In some ways, it was much harder earlier on. In some ways, it's much harder now.

What I can say, though, is that it's much harder to make money being a musician now than it was 20 to 25+ years ago. Even 10 or more years ago. The internet has both helped and destroyed the music industry. The internet has sorta both helped and destroyed everything.

[Gario]

This is about the only time I would say the exposure is easily worth not getting paid for. It's one thing to tell an artist that he's getting compensated by exposure when his music will be listened to by 100 or so people; it's a totally different ball game when it's the Superbowl halftime show where 200+ million people will be watching it. People see their sales often double in the months ahead after their performance at the Superbowl (I heard Beyonce had her music sales go up by 140% due to the exposure), so it really IS worth the exposure to perform at the Superbowl for free.

'Course, that's just me. For the most part I'm on board with people being upset at others who pay musicians with exposure, but the Superbowl is pretty much an exception, for me.

[The Derrit]

That... can't possibly be close to accurate...

no it's not accurate at all i'm glad we all figured that one out. metric shitton. however you want to put it.

The only reason the Super Bowl don't pay is because we let them do it. If every famous artist in the world demanded payment, would the Super Bowl pay up or get some unknown band? I wonder.

What about everyone else? The NFL players for example? "Oh its ok, you get expenses paid for and you'll be sponsored anyway. Everyone will be buying your merchandise after this, so we're not going to bother paying you"

So you're saying its ok for everyone else but not ok for musicians? I don't doubt that Bruno probably got his share of exposure and indirect payment, but instincts are telling me he's got gaining as much as he should be from it.

To quote a great man -

wut.

okay seriously here let's just do some simple math even. 30 seconds of advertising time in the super bowl was worth an even 4 million this year. so 8 million per minute. Bruno Mars got 13 minutes of time in the middle of the Super Bowl. to scale, he just got 104 million dollars worth of time from the NFL. for free. on top of the large amounts of money he is making from people buying his music due to the exposure he got. on top of the fact that a huge amount of people now know he's a great performer, and would be worth paying to see in concert. on top of the fact that he already GOT paid by pepsi, directly if not indirectly.

and your reasoning is it sets a bad precedent? no one with half a brain for good business would say that performing at the super bowl was a bad deal for bruno mars, or that he got gypped. he made money, expanded his personal brand significantly, got to perform at the most-watched television event of the year, and ABSOLUTELY CRUSHED IT. the only way you could not understand how big a boon this would be for a musician is if you don't understand how big of a stage the super bowl is.

it actually makes me in-real-life mad that there are people up in arms about this

[herograw]

So... around 111.5 million people watched it, according to my five second google search. That's not a billion, but it's most definitely a conservative estimate, and it's still most definitely a lot of people.

Secondly, the Super Bowl halftime show is essentially a career victory lap. I can't imagine musicians who do it do it "for the pay."

Thirdly, they're not even playing! I suppose you could pay the musicians for showing up and jumping around, but they're not playing anything.

I guess my point is, if you think the NFL is "getting one over" on these musicians, like they're some rookies to be messed around with, you might not have a good understanding of the situation. I get the feeling that Bruno Mars and RHCP know exactly what they're doing.

[Garrett Williamson]

So... around 111.5 million people watched it, according to my five second google search. That's not a billion, but it's most definitely a conservative estimate, and it's still most definitely a lot of people.

uh yeah, that's more than half of America.

[WillRock]

I think you're getting too caught up in the principle in this specific case - exposure on that scale is worth a hell of a lot, and I wouldn't be surprised if any standard fee the Super Bowl could pay would be nominal in comparison. How about if instead of hiring a musician, they just ran a Bruno Mars ad? Would that make more sense principle-wise?

Musicians are underpaid, but the Super Bowl is the wrong target to go after, because the promise of exposure there really is worth it.

Maybe I am going after the wrong target, and maybe the exposure is worth a fortune. Again, I ask about everyone else who gets paid. Are they exempt from the exposure they get from the NFL? The NFL Players for example. Why is it ok for musicians but not for the players? No one has actually answered that yet. Doesn't seem fair to me.

Besides, you're missing the point that i'm annoyed about the Super Bowl. I'm more annoyed with the attitude towards it. It seems like too many people are ok with the idea of performing free for exposure - more than that, they are ENCOURAGING it in this case, and yes I know that people have said that it is different on a smaller scale, but people constantly find ways to get out of paying musicians money for whatever reasons and we just seem to be ok with it. Where is the line drawn? Is it literally JUST the super bowl?

OCR is a community of talented people making music for FREE. Are you really suggesting OCR shouldn't exist because we don't get paid? I hope I just misinterpreted a joke...

Why are you comparing this to OCR? OCR takes copyrighted works and rearranges them. That is a big exception because the music belongs to someone else.

okay seriously here let's just do some simple math even. 30 seconds of advertising time in the super bowl was worth an even 4 million this year. so 8 million per minute. Bruno Mars got 13 minutes of time in the middle of the Super Bowl. to scale, he just got 104 million dollars worth of time from the NFL. for free.

Hold on, just to clarify, you're suggesting that people should pay to work at the super bowl because of "advertising time"? ...What? Do actors have to pay money to be in films/TV Shows because of the advertising time the directors are giving them? What about people who work in video games? Do the level designers, musicians, graphic designers all have to pay the game developer to work in their games? Are people suppose to pay for jobs because the boss is helping with exposure by having something to put on their CV? What you're suggesting is ridiculous.

Yes I might be getting caught up in "principles" as Palpable says, but if it was ANYTHING else other than a musician, I BET you that the Super Bowl would pay up for it.

[Chimpazilla]

I'm agreeing with Will here. Yeah the Super Bowl is one of the biggest events we have in this country, and the exposure certainly is worth a fortune. Also the musical performers at the Super Bowl are typically huge names and already way too rich. But I think it sets a really bad precedent for musicians. I understand Will's frustration.

[DarkeSword]

Is it literally JUST the super bowl?

Yes .

[Phonetic Hero]

uh yeah, that's more than half of America.

Ummmm what? That's a third of America

I gotta side with Will here. It's not the fact that Bruno Mars is probably doing fine without being compensated for his performance, it's the principle. The message they're sending is that art is worthless. I mean, seriously, the NFL can afford to pay 1700 players an average of 2 million each, on top of tons of staff and tax exempt status, and they can't even spare, I dunno, half a hundred thousand for a huge halftime attraction? LET'S DO SOME SIMPLE MATH!! 50k would be a fortieth of ONE player's salary. That's fucking chump change for the NFL

Having the top dogs devalue our craft gives everyone else an excuse to do the same - and the performers are just as much to blame as the NFL. If they banded together and said "we want to be compensated for the work we're doing," you better believe they'd start paying the musicians. But as is common, it seems like there's always someone who'll do it for free, and it's maddening. How is no one else as irritated about this, on a MUSIC site?!

Edited February 4, 2014 by Phonetic Hero

[OceansAndrew]

Hold on, just to clarify, you're suggesting that people should pay to work at the super bowl because of "advertising time"? ...What? Do actors have to pay money to be in films/TV Shows because of the advertising time the directors are giving them?

No, but Actors have to go on countless daytime and late night shows to *promote* the movies they star in. The movies are a product, just like albums, and going to talk to some late night dude for say, 10-13 minutes is part of what they are required to do to *promote* their product. They don't get paid for those appearances, or the countless interviews.

How much would you pay to advertise your entire Willrock catalog to 100 million people for 10 minutes?

How is no one else as irritated about this, on a MUSIC site?!

Because the superbowl performance wasn't about music, it was about business and promotion.

[Cash]

Why are you comparing this to OCR? OCR takes copyrighted works and rearranges them. That is a big exception because the music belongs to someone else.

The quote from the Joker was "if you're good at something, never do it for free." By that logic, if you're good at making music, you should only make music if you get payed. On OCR, people who are good at making music are making said music for free. If we are going by the Joker's logic, why bother making music if you can't get paid? Why make music in you're free time if you never get compensated for it?

The fact that we arrange copyrighted works is irrelevant to Joker's point. His argument is that you should only do something that you're good at if you get paid. He's basically saying hobbies are a waste of time. If you're good at arranging music, don't do it in your free time just for fun, only do it if money is involved. I was objecting to Joker's viewpoint. In my opinion, that's a close minded and limiting view of the world and would make life boring.

Because the superbowl performance wasn't about music, it was about business and promotion.

Exactly. A lot of people are looking at the half time show the wrong way, it's an incredible advertising opportunity. It would cost an unbelievable amount of money to reach that many people under ordinary circumstances. I fail to see how a promotion of music sets a bad precedent for music.

I gotta side with Will here. It's not the fact that Bruno Mars is probably doing fine without being compensated for his performance, it's the principle. The message they're sending is that art is worthless.

Wait a minute, are you saying the only way to show that art has value is through money? Is OCR not all about the appreciation of video game music as an art form? With no money involved.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Cash

[Phonetic Hero]

Because the superbowl performance wasn't about music, it was about business and promotion.

Good points, absolutely. But those late night shows aren't about the music either, and I bet the bands get paid

The promotion aspect still happens for musicians even though we don't have to be there in person as well... If you're part of a label, you give them a cut and they promote the music for you. Promotion is promotion, and work is work. If you're working (particularly in your field), you should be getting paid for it. If you're promoting your works, that's sort of a different issue

Edited February 4, 2014 by Phonetic Hero

[Garrett Williamson]

Ummmm what? That's a third of America

yeah my math was a bit off.

that'd be about a third, yes.

still, that's a lot of people.

[Cash]

But those late night shows aren't about the music either, and I bet the bands get paid

Certainly not always. Even if they are paid, bands certainly take part in promotion that is not paid. As well as promotion the band must pay for.

If you're working, you should be getting paid for it. If you're promoting your works, that's sort of a different issue

And the Super Bowl falls under promotion, which is basically what people have been saying.

[Meteo Xavier]

Ummmm what? That's a third of America

I gotta side with Will here. It's not the fact that Bruno Mars is probably doing fine without being compensated for his performance, it's the principle. The message they're sending is that art is worthless. I mean, seriously, the NFL can afford to pay 1700 players an average of 2 million each, on top of tons of staff and tax exempt status, and they can't even spare, I dunno, half a hundred thousand for a huge halftime attraction? LET'S DO SOME SIMPLE MATH!! 50k would be a fortieth of ONE player's salary. That's fucking chump change for the NFL

Having the top dogs devalue our craft gives everyone else an excuse to do the same - and the performers are just as much to blame as the NFL. If they banded together and said "we want to be compensated for the work we're doing," you better believe they'd start paying the musicians. But as is common, it seems like there's always someone who'll do it for free, and it's maddening. How is no one else as irritated about this, on a MUSIC site?!

Sorry, but you guys getting really hung up on this are still missing some key points here.

1. Performers at Halftime only play for 12-15 minutes, not the 2-3 hours they usually do.

2. They see huge boosts in album sales immediately after. They aren't paid directly by NFL, but it does eventually mean some $ coming up for it.

3. Do you REALLY think the top talent they get to do the halftime show would bother if they literally got nothing out of it?

You guys are freaking out over virtually nothing. You're making it sound like Bruno Mars agreeing to perform without direct payment suddenly means you need to give up music and get a job at Hardee's because now no one will ever pay for music anymore. Get a damn grip.

Let me ask this question: How many of you have seen your album sales directly affected negatively by Bruno Mars agreeing to perform without direct payment?

I'm going to guess a hardy NONE. This is all academic, theoretical chaos, not things that were going to have any significant impact on you personally.

If you are concerned about how much money you're going to be making as a music artist, I recommend KEEPING YOUR NOSE OUT OF OTHER ARTISTS' MUSIC BUSINESS AND WORKING MORE ON YOUR OWN.

Come now.

[WillRock]

No, but Actors have to go on countless daytime and late night shows to *promote* the movies they star in. The movies are a product, just like albums, and going to talk to some late night dude for say, 10-13 minutes is part of what they are required to do to *promote* their product. They don't get paid for those appearances, or the countless interviews.

You could argue they do because its covered by the pay they get for doing the acting in the first place if it comes with the territory.

How much would you pay to advertise your entire Willrock catalog to 100 million people for 10 minutes?

Hahahaha, touche bro! Its a good question, but lets see... I've paid to do exposure on the internet as an experiment (I actually think this is ok because it requires no time or effort on my part at all) and i've received pretty much little to no buys of my music from this, so via the internet, I'm standing to lose more money the more I promote myself.

Edgebee Studios - those games on Kongregate alone have received millions of hits, and i've received little to no recognition for it personally, so its a good job I got paid for them...

Doing it in person on a stage tho... Done that as well with others - for free with OCRemix, not representing myself - and we're only managed to build up interest in a select few people over time. For someone in my position, playing at the super bowl is most likely priceless, but this is Bruno Mars, who is a well established musician with a large fanbase, proven to sell millions of records already. Its more the fact that HE won't get paid for his work. For me, someone who has no exposure in comparison, sure I'd do it for free, maybe even pay, but I probably would have to give it some serious thought if I was bruno mars before I said yes.

To try and rephrase my point - if the Super Bowl, who will give you the biggest exposure, won't pay the biggest artists, why should smaller venues pay for smaller artists? It creates a negative business modal that suggests our art isn't worth paying for... and we allow it.

The quote from the Joker was "if you're good at something, never do it for free." By that logic, if you're good at making music, you should only make music if you get payed. On OCR, people who are good at making music are making said music for free.

That is also a good point, and there has been some communication error there, my bad, allow me to explain

What the Joker meant by his quote is irrelevant because I was using his quote to emphasis my own meaning. I probably should have been more clear about that, sorry. I believe OCR is exempt from the rule because of the copyright laws.

I think I have more than expressed my point of view here so I will bow out of this conversation. Agree to disagree

[Argle]

I'm not worried about the musicians who play halftime. I don't think there are any small up and comers who ever do it, they always pick the mega stars. These musicians no doubt assume that not being paid by the NFL is worth the spotlight time.